| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Woodeson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Birthplace, etc. edit
More biographical information on this under-appreciated character actor would be great if anyone can find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs) 15:05, February 15, 2007 (UTC)
Trivia section edit
The recent deletion of the "References" section in favor of a "Trivia" paragraph may well have been an accident. The deletion has been restored, but may I draw attention to this guideline, which suggests: "that trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text". This is what I propose to do, if I can find somewhere sensible to put it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Infobox edit
There really is no need for this on an article of this size and per WP:INFOBOXUSE. I've deleted it, per WP:BRD. CassiantoTalk 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: I'm afraid I don't understand, is it alright if you explain? (I apologize for my ignorance on policies and infobox etiquette) The Verified Cactus 100% 00:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- You have to look at what benefits this infobox offers this article. In the box you added we have a name, date of birth, date of death and occupation. Well, so does the lead - all in the first line, and a much better job it does too. An infobox is designed to be a summary of an entire article; at 5,000 bytes, this article is not comprehensive enough to warrant such an eyesore in the top right hand side of the article, as most of the information can readily and easily be found within the first line of the lead section. According to the MoS: ""The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So it is a complete myth that infoboxes are a conformity. I would rather you spend the 564 bytes that an infobox adds in size, on reliable sourced text about Woodeson's life and career, instead. CassiantoTalk 08:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Still find an image though, that would be a good improvement. Did you have one in mind? CassiantoTalk 23:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with image copyright policy either, so I'm not sure which images would be free to use. Do you know if there are any sources for free images of people? Flickr? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- His era goes against him, unfortunately, and I should very much doubt that there is a free image of him out there. There could only be two situations of a free image being out there: if the licence allows for it on somewhere like Flickr; or if you've taken the picture yourself. Alternatively, and if you do find a non-free image on Flickr you quite like, you could always email the person who owns the image to see if they would mind you using it on Wikipedia. The permission would then need to be sent onto Wikipedia:Contact OTRS. That's worked for me in the past. CassiantoTalk 18:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with image copyright policy either, so I'm not sure which images would be free to use. Do you know if there are any sources for free images of people? Flickr? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Still find an image though, that would be a good improvement. Did you have one in mind? CassiantoTalk 23:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You have to look at what benefits this infobox offers this article. In the box you added we have a name, date of birth, date of death and occupation. Well, so does the lead - all in the first line, and a much better job it does too. An infobox is designed to be a summary of an entire article; at 5,000 bytes, this article is not comprehensive enough to warrant such an eyesore in the top right hand side of the article, as most of the information can readily and easily be found within the first line of the lead section. According to the MoS: ""The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So it is a complete myth that infoboxes are a conformity. I would rather you spend the 564 bytes that an infobox adds in size, on reliable sourced text about Woodeson's life and career, instead. CassiantoTalk 08:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)